Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

Main Entry:
3wrong
Function:
adverb
Date:
13th century
1: without accuracy : incorrectly <guessed>2: without regard for what is proper or just <was>3: in a wrong direction <turned>4 a: in an unsuccessful or unfortunate way <something> b: out of working order or condition5: in a false light <don't get me wrong>

• adverb 1 in a mistaken or undesirable manner or direction. 2 with an incorrect result.

ADVERB: 1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously. 2. In a wrong course or direction. 3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie. 4. In an unfavorable way. See synonyms at amiss.

Perhaps my confusion arises from a lack of a clear understanding of just what you do mean, intend or believe here - particularly involving the question of origins. I have seen lots of criticism of various points, some I actually made, some not, but little that is affirmative.

Concerning origins I see ignorance with no solutions. I am open to finding one, but don't expect it. That's really are there is so far as I can tell, so rather than treating it as a void to be filled, I treat it as a point of ignorance where so far all you can really do is point out how little reason people have to stick God, 'first cause', etc in there. I'd love it if someone came up with an actual proof, but don't find it likely .

That's really are there is so far as I can tell, so rather than treating it as a void to be filled, I treat it as a point of ignorance where so far all you can really do is point out how little reason people have to stick God, 'first cause', etc in there.

I take it when you write ".. how little reason people have to stick God, 'first cause', etc in there", you are applying a more or less scientific standard to the question of how much or how little reason people might have.

No, I also accept logic or good philosophical arguments, so far as I can tell. I certainly take no blame if the others are laughably invalid and heck I'd even be open to one if it could be argued well in another way. That's why this is ignorance is something more interesting than a 'void'.

I think it's largely a semantics issue with the void/ignorance thing, but I was getting a strong sense that the word 'void' implied the need to be filled.

I find it difficult to understand why one, with no expectation that science might one day fill it, might prefer to leave it unfilled. However, that is but my own perception. (I also find it hard to conceive that science can possibly fill it.)

georgeob1 wrote:

I find it difficult to understand why one, with no expectation that science might one day fill it, might prefer to leave it unfilled. However, that is but my own perception. (I also find it hard to conceive that science can possibly fill it.)

Why the heck did I think that you had a fertile imagination, George?

I'm not sure where you are attempting to go with this. Are you suggesting that all views that differ from yours are "laughably invalid"?? We appeared to at least be better defining the area in which we disagreed. Are you now reversing that?

I don't understand the meaning of your "That's why this is ignorance...." sentence.

By void I meant empty, the absense of anything. Whether one believes it should be filled is a matter of choice. I find it difficult to understand why one, with no expectation that science might one day fill it, might prefer to leave it unfilled. However, that is but my own perception. (I also find it hard to conceive that science can possibly fill it.)

[
Where did I suggest that? You just seem to be reading your biases into this like you did earlier with what my idea of "ignorance" was. Do you not recognize that there are laughably invalid arguments for things concerning this particular ignorance? Have you ever heard of the cosmological argument?
l.

Interesting. That is how I see you.

Your insights are certainly good enough to confirm your prejudgments. However, that's axiomatic.

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

In a piece written for Edge, Shaprio goes on to say this:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#shapiro
ROBERT SHAPIRO
Professor Emeritus, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemistry, New York University. Author, Planetary Dreams

Quote:

We shall understand the origin of life within the next 5 years

I wonder when he wrote that? Do we still have 5 years to go, or are we almost there?

I'm anxious to know how natural chemistry led to the precursors of replicative molecules (and eventually, life).

Send him an email. [email protected]

Maybe I can get him to join our thread.

But the last time I convinced a real scientist to join our discussion, he read the thread and saw some spendi posts and decided we were all a bunch of fruitcakes. I don't want to go through that again.

I sent him the email and he answered. The article was written in 2005.

This could be interesting, though the article was offered as speculative.

I say again....


This movie is an absolute don't-miss; aside from everything else, it provides a definitive answer to the question, "Is there such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ (Dawkins)?"

...a kind of a reptile, but a terribly bright fellow...